So in light of last week’s Times Square bomb-thingy, who’s laughing now? Not the New York Times, in an article about the phrase’s elevation to “iconic,” including an interview with sloganeer extraordinaire Allen Kay:

“The model that I had in my head was ‘Loose Lips Sink Ships,’ ” Mr. Kay said. “I wasn’t born [yet] during World War II, but I sure knew the phrase and so did everybody else.”

“In this case,” he added, “I thought it was ironic because we want just the opposite. We want people to talk. I wanted to come up with something that would carry like that. That would be infectious.”

In 2002, the transportation agency saw a need for a security-awareness campaign to encourage customers to report suspicious activity or unattended packages, and they turned to Mr. Kay, who still had the phrase on his index card. By January 2003, the slogan was on posters and placards in subway cars, buses and trains.

It has since become a global phenomenon — the homeland security equivalent of the “Just Do It” Nike advertisement — and has appeared in public transportation systems in Oregon, Texas, Florida, Australia and Canada, among others. Locally, the phrase captured, with six simple words and one comma, the security consciousness and dread of the times, the “I â™¥ NY” of post-9/11 New York City.

The transportation authority received a trademark on the slogan from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, though unauthorized uses appear to outnumber authorized ones.

Did you know, by the way, that you can “receive a trademark” from the PTO? I didn’t. I thought they only registered trademarks, which are otherwise earned by use that rises to the level of establishing a secondary meaning! Silly me.

So the end of that distinction, manifested of course by the common use of “trademark” as a verb, is now official, for it is no longer recognized among reporters or their diligent, triple-checking editorial phalanxes at the Newspaper of Record. This says it all about what “trademarking” has become, unfortunately; as to “journalism,” well, what do I know?

There’s more:

Since obtaining the trademark [registration] in 2007, the authority has granted permission to use the phrase in public awareness campaigns to 54 organizations in the United States and overseas, like [sic] Amtrak, the Chicago Transit Authority, the emergency management office at Stony Brook University and three states in Australia.

The authority has not charged for such uses of the slogan. Some requests have been rejected, including one from a university that wanted to use it to address a series of dormitory burglaries.

“The intent of the slogan is to focus on terrorism activity, not crime, and we felt that use in other spheres would water down its effectiveness,” said Christopher Boylan, an M.T.A. spokesman.

I have some issues with how this qualifies as trademark use, but perhaps I’m not familiar with slogans-turned-registrations for services. It seems the mark is the message itself here; how is it being used in connection with the sale or advertising of the MTA’s services? The Office Action response just pointed to other registrations and said “they did it, too.” Does anyone have some law to which they can direct me?

Tal and Dan raise a good point in asking “Is this really a use in commerce?” It looks like the Examining Attorney addressed this issue in the first Office Action with respect to the specimen that was included with the application (though we all know how this story ends):

“The current specimen of record comprises a poster and is unacceptable as evidence of actual service mark use. The poster shows the proposed mark in use to warn subway passengers to be alert to security threats. The poster demonstrates only that the applicant wishes to warn passengers about safety issues. It does not show the applicant offering a service â€“ such as designing promotional campaigns for others. As used in the poster, the applicantâ€™s slogan is no more of a service mark than a ‘no food or drink allowed’ sign would be.”

One big reason silly marks like this exist is that others are fooled into thinking they need to ask permission. That campus police force who wanted to use this purely descriptive slogan for crime should have just gone ahead. Don’t ask for permission. Solid defense– they’re not using it as a mark. In the event the MTA actually sues in another jurisdiction, just embarrass them publicly for squandering MTA funds on non-transit litigation.

Check out Clouthub – GetClouthub.com/Ron

The Title, the Blog and the Blogger

The question of whether consumers are likely to be confused is the signal inquiry that determines if a trademark infringement claim is valid. I write here about trademark law, copyright law, brands, free speech (mostly as it relates to the Internet) and legal issues related to blogging. That may sound like a lot, but it's just a blog.

READ THIS FIRST OR ELSE

THIS BLOG IS ONLY A BLOG, NOT LEGAL ADVICE. IT IS IN PART AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BY RONALD D. COLEMAN, AN ATTORNEY ADMITTED IN NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY ONLY, BUT HE IS NOT YOUR LAWYER. YOU ARE NOT HIS CLIENT CLIENT. JUST WALK BESIDE HIM AND BE HIS FRIEND.